2019年11月15日，举世瞩目的国际体育仲裁院对世界反兴奋剂机构诉孙杨、国际泳联一案（案号CAS2019/A/6148）在瑞士蒙特勒进行公开听证审理并全球直播。北京市蓝鹏律师事务所主任张起淮作为本次庭审孙杨的代理律师之一，参与了本次庭审。从11月20日起，蓝鹏律师事务所官方公众号独家解读孙杨案件背后的故事，敬请关注。
On15 November 2019, the world-renowned Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) conducted the public hearing on the appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against Sun Yang and the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) (Case No.CAS 2019/A/6148) in Montreux, Switzerland. The hearing was available by livestream on the internet. Mr. Zhang Qihuai, the director of Beijing Lanpeng Law Firm, participated in the hearing as one of the authorized lawyers of Sun Yang. From November 20th, the official We-chat account of Beijing Lanpeng Law Firm exclusively analyzes the story beneath this case, please stay tuned.
解读孙杨案件系列专题之三
流程、管辖与救济
Part Three of the Analysis Regarding the Case of WADA vs. Sun Yang & FINA
Procedure、Jurisdiction & Remedies
案情回顾
2018年9月4日晚，IDTM公司兴奋剂检查人员在对孙杨进行赛外检查过程中，因检查人员的授权、资质和拍照等问题发生争议，后双方均向国际泳联投诉。国际泳联于2018年11月19日召开听证会，2019年1月3日作出裁决，确认孙杨没有违反国际泳联反兴奋剂规则。世界反兴奋剂机构不服裁决，向国际体育仲裁院提起上诉。
Case Review
On the evening of September 4, 2018, the doping control officers from IDTM disputed with Sun Yang regarding the authorization, certification and taking pictures during the out-of-competition test. Later, both sides complained to FINA. On November 19, 2018, FINA held a hearing, and made the decision on January 3, 2019 that Sun Yang did not violate the FINA Doping Control Rule. The World Anti-Doping Agency dissatisfied with the decision made by FINA and appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
一、本案司法程序
1.Proceeding in this Case
“兴奋剂检查事件”发生后，孙杨于2018年9月6日向国际泳联（以下简称“FINA”）提交了书面投诉，而IDTM公司委派的检查官向FINA递交了补充报告，声称孙杨存在诸多违规行为。FINA在收到各方递交的材料后，曾通过邮件要求孙杨对此事作出解释。2018年10月，FINA认为孙杨可能存在违反国际泳联检查规则DC2.3（拒绝或未能完成）和DC 2.5（篡改或试图篡改）的情形，并将案件提交至FINA的反兴奋剂委员会。FINA的反兴奋剂委员会是FINA的内设仲裁机构，具有独立性，可依照相关规定调查、审理协会内部的运动员兴奋剂纠纷案件。
After the incident regarding the doping control test, Sun Yang submitted a written complaint to the Fédération Internationale de Natation (hereinafter referred to as “FINA”) on 6 September 2018, while the doping control officers sent by IDTM submitted a supplementary report to FINA, which claimed that Sun Yang committed multiply violations. After receiving the materials submitted by both parties, FINA asked Sun Yang to make some explanations via e-mail. In October 2018, FINA considered that Sun Yang might have violated the FINA Doping Rules Article DC 2.3 (rejected or failed to complete the doping control test) and DC 2.5 (tampering or attempted tampering the doping control test) and submitted this case to FINA Doping Panel. Although FINA Doping Panel is an internal arbitration institution of FINA, due to its independence, it has the right to investigate and make decisions regarding the doping
disputes among athletes within different sports association in accordance with relevant regulations.
2019年1月3日，国际泳联反兴奋剂委员会作出裁决，认定孙杨在2018年9月4日的检查中不存在违反国际泳联检查规则DC 2.3和DC 2.5的行为。世界反兴奋剂机构对国际泳联反兴奋剂委员会作出的裁决不服，于2019年2月启动上诉程序。
FINADoping Panel made the decision that Mr. Sun Yang did not commit any violation under DC 2.3 and DC 2.5 of FINA Doping Control Rules on 3 January 2019. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was dissatisfied with the decision and initiated the appeal process in February 2019.
（图1-FINA办公楼外观）
二、本案两个阶段的处理流程
2.Process regarding Two Stages in this Case
正如系列专题一所介绍的，WADA由国际奥委会牵头成立，各国政府和政府间机构等各主体支持。它对世界单项体育联合会关于兴奋剂的裁定和决定不服时，有权向CAS提起上诉。
As introduced in Part One of the series, WADA was set up as a foundation under the initiative of the IOC with the support and participation of intergovernmental organizations, governments, public authorities, and other public and private bodies fighting doping in sport. It has the right to appeal to CAS when it is dissatisfied with the decisions regarding doping made by international federations.
（图2-本案在FINA阶段的流程）
【蓝鹏律师事务所版权所有】
（图3-本案在CAS阶段的流程）
【蓝鹏律师事务所版权所有】
（图4-2018年11月19日，张起淮律师在FINA反兴奋剂委员会开庭）
三、CAS管辖权的来源
3.Source of the Jurisdiction of CAS
一般而言，上诉仲裁的管辖权来源于体育组织的规定或者仲裁协议。《体育仲裁规则》R47规定，依据联合会、协会或体育相关机构的法规或条例，或依据运动员和前述机构签订的特定的仲裁协议，并且上诉方依据前述机构的法规或条例，已在上诉前穷尽救济，方可针对联合会、协会或体育相关机构的决定，向国际体育仲裁院提起上诉。
Generally, the jurisdiction of CAS originates from the statutes or regulations of sports organizations or arbitration agreements. In accordance with R47 of Code of Sports-related Arbitration, an appeal against the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body may be filed with CAS if the statutes or regulations of the said body so provide or if the parties have concluded a specific arbitration agreement and if the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available to it prior to the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of that body.
孙杨虽未签订任何仲裁协议，其需接受CAS的管辖是依据《国际泳联兴奋剂检查规则》中相关规定，反兴奋剂规则应适用于国际泳联和每一国际泳联成员联合会及其成员、运动员，每名成员和远动员均被视为同意受到反兴奋剂规则的约束，并接受国际泳联和成员联合会听证会的管辖，包括听证、对案件作出决定，并在反兴奋剂规则项下提起上诉。中国系国际泳联的会员国，因此孙杨受到国际泳联反兴奋剂规则的制约。
Although Sun Yang did not sign any arbitration agreement, he had to subject to the jurisdiction of CAS based on the relevant provisions regarding the FINA Doping Control Rules that, these Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to and be binding upon FINA and each FINA Member Federation and its members and Athletes, each of whom is deemed, as a condition of his or her membership, accreditation and/or participation in the sport, to haveagreed to be bound by these Anti-Doping Rules, and to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the FINA and Member Federation hearing panels to hear and determine cases and appeals brought under these Anti-Doping Rules. China is a member of FINA. Therefore, Sun Yang is deemed to have agreed to be bound by FINA Doping Control Rules.
依据《国际泳联兴奋剂检查规则》DC13.2.3，有权向国际体育仲裁院提起上诉的主体包括运动员、国际泳联、国际反兴奋剂机构、运动员所属国的国家反兴奋剂中心。依据《国际泳联兴奋剂检查规则》DC13.1.3，并不要求WADA在上诉前穷尽内部救济手段。在国际泳联反兴奋剂委员会对本案作出裁决后，本案有上诉权的主体中只有WADA不服该裁决，向CAS提起上诉。
According to article DC 13.2.3 of FINA Doping Control Rules, the athlete, FINA, WADA and the National Anti-Doping Organization of the athlete’s country shall have the right to appeal to CAS against the decision made by FINA Doping Panel. According to article DC 13.1.3 of FINA Doping Control Rules, WADA is not required to exhaust internal remedies before the appeal. In this case, after the issuance of the decision made by FINA Doping Panel, only WADA appealed the decision to CAS.
依据《体育仲裁规则》S20，CAS组成机构为三个，即普通仲裁机构、反兴奋剂仲裁机构和上诉仲裁机构。依据《体育仲裁规则》R47，将上诉仲裁机构的可仲裁事项限定在“体育组织根据其章程或条例所做的决定”。
According to article S20 of Code of Sports-related Arbitration, the CAS is composed of three divisions, the Ordinary Arbitration Division, the Anti-doping Division and the Appeals Arbitration Division. According to article R47 of Code of Sports-related Arbitration, the matter to be arbitrated by the Appeals Arbitration Division was limited to “the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body”.
因此，CAS的上诉仲裁机构处理经过体育组织内部处理的具有纪律性质的纠纷，其相当于二审纠纷解决机构。
Therefore, the Appeals Arbitration Division handles with the dispute of a disciplinary nature that has been processed internally by sports organizations, equivalent to the dispute resolution body of the second instance.
（图5-CAS办公地外）
四、听证会公开举行的原因
4.Reason for this Public Hearing
依据《体育仲裁规则》R57，如申请公开听证的一方当事人为自然人，且事项属于纪律性质，则应公开举行听证会。但在以下情形下可能被否决，如为了道德、公众秩序、民族安全利益，少数利益或双方的私人利益保护要求，如公开可能影响公共利益，或该程序仅与法律问题相关或当一审听证会已经公开召开。
According to article R57 of Code of Sports-related Arbitration, at the request of a physical person who is party to the proceedings, a public hearing should be held if the matter is of a disciplinary nature. Such request may however be denied in the interest of morals, public order, national security, where the interests of minors or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice, where the proceedings are exclusively related to questions of law or where a hearing held in first instance was already public.
本案涉及兴奋剂纪律处罚，孙杨主动申请听证会公开举行系为了公众了解真相，不会对公众或他人利益产生影响，且CAS、FINA、WADA均未提出异议。因此，本次听证会得以公开举行。
In this case, the matter is of a disciplinary nature, and Sun Yang requested for public hearing, because he desired to reveal the truth to the public, without prejudice to the interest of the public or others. In addition, CAS, FINA, WADA, none of them objected to such request regarding the public hearing. Therefore, the hearing was held in public.
五、CAS裁决后，各方当事人的救济途径
5.Remedies Available for the Parties after CAS makes decision
依据CAS仲裁规则R59，裁决应依多数意见作出；如未能形成多数意见，则由首席仲裁员单独作出。裁决应以书面形式、注明日期并由仲裁员签署。裁决应简要说明理由，由首席仲裁员签署，或若首席不签署的情况下，由两名仲裁员签署。
According to article R59 of Code of Sports-related Arbitration The award shall be rendered by a majority decision, or in the absence of a majority, by the President alone. It shall be written, dated and signed. The award shall state brief reasons. The sole signature of the President of the Panel or the signatures of the two co-arbitrators, if the President does not sign, shall suffice.
在签署裁决前，应将裁决发送至CAS秘书长，其可作出纯粹形式上的修正，且也可提请仲裁庭对于基础性原则问题予以关注。CAS裁决书中不注明仲裁员的反对意见。
Before the award is signed, it shall be transmitted to the CAS Secretary General who may make rectifications of pure form and may also draw the attention of the Panel to fundamental issues of principle. Dissenting opinions are not recognized by CAS and are not notified.
CAS仲裁裁决的生效期限为自CAS法庭办公室通过邮件或快递方式通知当事人裁决结果后30天。依据瑞士联邦国际私法第191条，任何一方当事人如不服该裁决，均可向瑞士联邦最高法院提出上诉。
The award, notified by the CAS Court Office, shall be final and binding upon the parties subject to recourse available in certain circumstances pursuant to Swiss Law within 30 days from the notification of the award by mail or courier. According to article 191 of Federal Statute on Private International Law，any party may appeal the decision to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
（图6-孙杨律师团为本次听证准备的案件材料）
2019年11月15日，举世瞩目的国际体育仲裁院对世界反兴奋剂机构诉孙杨、国际泳联一案（案号CAS2019/A/6148）在瑞士蒙特勒进行公开听证审理并全球直播。北京市蓝鹏律师事务所主任张起淮作为本次庭审孙杨的代理律师之一，参与了本次庭审。从11月20日起，蓝鹏律师事务所官方公众号独家解读孙杨案件背后的故事，敬请关注。
On15 November 2019, the world-renowned Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) conducted the public hearing on the appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against Sun Yang and the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) (Case No.CAS 2019/A/6148) in Montreux, Switzerland. The hearing was available by livestream on the internet. Mr. Zhang Qihuai, the director of Beijing Lanpeng Law Firm, participated in the hearing as one of the authorized lawyers of Sun Yang. From November 20th, the official We-chat account of Beijing Lanpeng Law Firm exclusively analyzes the story beneath this case, please stay tuned.
解读孙杨案件系列专题之三
流程、管辖与救济
Part Three of the Analysis Regarding the Case of WADA vs. Sun Yang & FINA
Procedure、Jurisdiction & Remedies
案情回顾
2018年9月4日晚，IDTM公司兴奋剂检查人员在对孙杨进行赛外检查过程中，因检查人员的授权、资质和拍照等问题发生争议，后双方均向国际泳联投诉。国际泳联于2018年11月19日召开听证会，2019年1月3日作出裁决，确认孙杨没有违反国际泳联反兴奋剂规则。世界反兴奋剂机构不服裁决，向国际体育仲裁院提起上诉。
Case Review
On the evening of September 4, 2018, the doping control officers from IDTM disputed with Sun Yang regarding the authorization, certification and taking pictures during the out-of-competition test. Later, both sides complained to FINA. On November 19, 2018, FINA held a hearing, and made the decision on January 3, 2019 that Sun Yang did not violate the FINA Doping Control Rule. The World Anti-Doping Agency dissatisfied with the decision made by FINA and appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
一、本案司法程序
1.Proceeding in this Case
“兴奋剂检查事件”发生后，孙杨于2018年9月6日向国际泳联（以下简称“FINA”）提交了书面投诉，而IDTM公司委派的检查官向FINA递交了补充报告，声称孙杨存在诸多违规行为。FINA在收到各方递交的材料后，曾通过邮件要求孙杨对此事作出解释。2018年10月，FINA认为孙杨可能存在违反国际泳联检查规则DC2.3（拒绝或未能完成）和DC 2.5（篡改或试图篡改）的情形，并将案件提交至FINA的反兴奋剂委员会。FINA的反兴奋剂委员会是FINA的内设仲裁机构，具有独立性，可依照相关规定调查、审理协会内部的运动员兴奋剂纠纷案件。
After the incident regarding the doping control test, Sun Yang submitted a written complaint to the Fédération Internationale de Natation (hereinafter referred to as “FINA”) on 6 September 2018, while the doping control officers sent by IDTM submitted a supplementary report to FINA, which claimed that Sun Yang committed multiply violations. After receiving the materials submitted by both parties, FINA asked Sun Yang to make some explanations via e-mail. In October 2018, FINA considered that Sun Yang might have violated the FINA Doping Rules Article DC 2.3 (rejected or failed to complete the doping control test) and DC 2.5 (tampering or attempted tampering the doping control test) and submitted this case to FINA Doping Panel. Although FINA Doping Panel is an internal arbitration institution of FINA, due to its independence, it has the right to investigate and make decisions regarding the doping
disputes among athletes within different sports association in accordance with relevant regulations.
2019年1月3日，国际泳联反兴奋剂委员会作出裁决，认定孙杨在2018年9月4日的检查中不存在违反国际泳联检查规则DC 2.3和DC 2.5的行为。世界反兴奋剂机构对国际泳联反兴奋剂委员会作出的裁决不服，于2019年2月启动上诉程序。
FINADoping Panel made the decision that Mr. Sun Yang did not commit any violation under DC 2.3 and DC 2.5 of FINA Doping Control Rules on 3 January 2019. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was dissatisfied with the decision and initiated the appeal process in February 2019.
（图1-FINA办公楼外观）
二、本案两个阶段的处理流程
2.Process regarding Two Stages in this Case
正如系列专题一所介绍的，WADA由国际奥委会牵头成立，各国政府和政府间机构等各主体支持。它对世界单项体育联合会关于兴奋剂的裁定和决定不服时，有权向CAS提起上诉。
As introduced in Part One of the series, WADA was set up as a foundation under the initiative of the IOC with the support and participation of intergovernmental organizations, governments, public authorities, and other public and private bodies fighting doping in sport. It has the right to appeal to CAS when it is dissatisfied with the decisions regarding doping made by international federations.
（图2-本案在FINA阶段的流程）
【蓝鹏律师事务所版权所有】
（图3-本案在CAS阶段的流程）
【蓝鹏律师事务所版权所有】
（图4-2018年11月19日，张起淮律师在FINA反兴奋剂委员会开庭）
三、CAS管辖权的来源
3.Source of the Jurisdiction of CAS
一般而言，上诉仲裁的管辖权来源于体育组织的规定或者仲裁协议。《体育仲裁规则》R47规定，依据联合会、协会或体育相关机构的法规或条例，或依据运动员和前述机构签订的特定的仲裁协议，并且上诉方依据前述机构的法规或条例，已在上诉前穷尽救济，方可针对联合会、协会或体育相关机构的决定，向国际体育仲裁院提起上诉。
Generally, the jurisdiction of CAS originates from the statutes or regulations of sports organizations or arbitration agreements. In accordance with R47 of Code of Sports-related Arbitration, an appeal against the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body may be filed with CAS if the statutes or regulations of the said body so provide or if the parties have concluded a specific arbitration agreement and if the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available to it prior to the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of that body.
孙杨虽未签订任何仲裁协议，其需接受CAS的管辖是依据《国际泳联兴奋剂检查规则》中相关规定，反兴奋剂规则应适用于国际泳联和每一国际泳联成员联合会及其成员、运动员，每名成员和远动员均被视为同意受到反兴奋剂规则的约束，并接受国际泳联和成员联合会听证会的管辖，包括听证、对案件作出决定，并在反兴奋剂规则项下提起上诉。中国系国际泳联的会员国，因此孙杨受到国际泳联反兴奋剂规则的制约。
Although Sun Yang did not sign any arbitration agreement, he had to subject to the jurisdiction of CAS based on the relevant provisions regarding the FINA Doping Control Rules that, these Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to and be binding upon FINA and each FINA Member Federation and its members and Athletes, each of whom is deemed, as a condition of his or her membership, accreditation and/or participation in the sport, to haveagreed to be bound by these Anti-Doping Rules, and to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the FINA and Member Federation hearing panels to hear and determine cases and appeals brought under these Anti-Doping Rules. China is a member of FINA. Therefore, Sun Yang is deemed to have agreed to be bound by FINA Doping Control Rules.
依据《国际泳联兴奋剂检查规则》DC13.2.3，有权向国际体育仲裁院提起上诉的主体包括运动员、国际泳联、国际反兴奋剂机构、运动员所属国的国家反兴奋剂中心。依据《国际泳联兴奋剂检查规则》DC13.1.3，并不要求WADA在上诉前穷尽内部救济手段。在国际泳联反兴奋剂委员会对本案作出裁决后，本案有上诉权的主体中只有WADA不服该裁决，向CAS提起上诉。
According to article DC 13.2.3 of FINA Doping Control Rules, the athlete, FINA, WADA and the National Anti-Doping Organization of the athlete’s country shall have the right to appeal to CAS against the decision made by FINA Doping Panel. According to article DC 13.1.3 of FINA Doping Control Rules, WADA is not required to exhaust internal remedies before the appeal. In this case, after the issuance of the decision made by FINA Doping Panel, only WADA appealed the decision to CAS.
依据《体育仲裁规则》S20，CAS组成机构为三个，即普通仲裁机构、反兴奋剂仲裁机构和上诉仲裁机构。依据《体育仲裁规则》R47，将上诉仲裁机构的可仲裁事项限定在“体育组织根据其章程或条例所做的决定”。
According to article S20 of Code of Sports-related Arbitration, the CAS is composed of three divisions, the Ordinary Arbitration Division, the Anti-doping Division and the Appeals Arbitration Division. According to article R47 of Code of Sports-related Arbitration, the matter to be arbitrated by the Appeals Arbitration Division was limited to “the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body”.
因此，CAS的上诉仲裁机构处理经过体育组织内部处理的具有纪律性质的纠纷，其相当于二审纠纷解决机构。
Therefore, the Appeals Arbitration Division handles with the dispute of a disciplinary nature that has been processed internally by sports organizations, equivalent to the dispute resolution body of the second instance.
（图5-CAS办公地外）
四、听证会公开举行的原因
4.Reason for this Public Hearing
依据《体育仲裁规则》R57，如申请公开听证的一方当事人为自然人，且事项属于纪律性质，则应公开举行听证会。但在以下情形下可能被否决，如为了道德、公众秩序、民族安全利益，少数利益或双方的私人利益保护要求，如公开可能影响公共利益，或该程序仅与法律问题相关或当一审听证会已经公开召开。
According to article R57 of Code of Sports-related Arbitration, at the request of a physical person who is party to the proceedings, a public hearing should be held if the matter is of a disciplinary nature. Such request may however be denied in the interest of morals, public order, national security, where the interests of minors or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice, where the proceedings are exclusively related to questions of law or where a hearing held in first instance was already public.
本案涉及兴奋剂纪律处罚，孙杨主动申请听证会公开举行系为了公众了解真相，不会对公众或他人利益产生影响，且CAS、FINA、WADA均未提出异议。因此，本次听证会得以公开举行。
In this case, the matter is of a disciplinary nature, and Sun Yang requested for public hearing, because he desired to reveal the truth to the public, without prejudice to the interest of the public or others. In addition, CAS, FINA, WADA, none of them objected to such request regarding the public hearing. Therefore, the hearing was held in public.
五、CAS裁决后，各方当事人的救济途径
5.Remedies Available for the Parties after CAS makes decision
依据CAS仲裁规则R59，裁决应依多数意见作出；如未能形成多数意见，则由首席仲裁员单独作出。裁决应以书面形式、注明日期并由仲裁员签署。裁决应简要说明理由，由首席仲裁员签署，或若首席不签署的情况下，由两名仲裁员签署。
According to article R59 of Code of Sports-related Arbitration The award shall be rendered by a majority decision, or in the absence of a majority, by the President alone. It shall be written, dated and signed. The award shall state brief reasons. The sole signature of the President of the Panel or the signatures of the two co-arbitrators, if the President does not sign, shall suffice.
在签署裁决前，应将裁决发送至CAS秘书长，其可作出纯粹形式上的修正，且也可提请仲裁庭对于基础性原则问题予以关注。CAS裁决书中不注明仲裁员的反对意见。
Before the award is signed, it shall be transmitted to the CAS Secretary General who may make rectifications of pure form and may also draw the attention of the Panel to fundamental issues of principle. Dissenting opinions are not recognized by CAS and are not notified.
CAS仲裁裁决的生效期限为自CAS法庭办公室通过邮件或快递方式通知当事人裁决结果后30天。依据瑞士联邦国际私法第191条，任何一方当事人如不服该裁决，均可向瑞士联邦最高法院提出上诉。
The award, notified by the CAS Court Office, shall be final and binding upon the parties subject to recourse available in certain circumstances pursuant to Swiss Law within 30 days from the notification of the award by mail or courier. According to article 191 of Federal Statute on Private International Law，any party may appeal the decision to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
（图6-孙杨律师团为本次听证准备的案件材料）
